You are here: / / CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, IS LIABLE ...
,

CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, IS LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Justice Gische, determined the board of managers of a condominium was liable under the Labor Law for plaintiff’s elevation-related injury in a common area (the boiler room), not the sponsor which still owned several unsold condominium units:

While defendant 41 West 72 LLC acquired the building in question by a deed recorded in January 2001, several months later, in August 2001, 41 West 72 LLC made the building subject to the Condominium Act (Real Property Law, article 9-B) by executing and filing a declaration of condominium pursuant to Real Property Law § 339-f … . The declaration defines the common elements of the condominium (Real Property Law § 339-e[2]) to include the building’s boiler room. As a common element of the condominium, the boiler room was, at the time of plaintiff’s accident, owned collectively by all of the owners of the building’s 130 units … . However, the conversion of the building to a condominium placed its common elements “solely under the control of the [condominium’s] board of managers” pursuant to the Condominium Act, which “recogni[zes] that the board exercises exclusive control over the common elements” … . Jerdonek v 41 W. 72 LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05666, 1st Dept 7-28-16

LABOR LAW (CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)/REAL PROPERTY LAW (LABOR LAW, CONDOMINIUMS, CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)/CONDOMINIUMS (LABOR LAW, CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)/BOARD OF MANAGERS (CONDOMINIUMS, LABOR LAW, CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A WHEEL ON THE CONTAINER HE WAS PUSHING GOT STUCK IN A GAP IN THE FLOOR AFTER THE PLYWOOD COVERING THE GAP BROKE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6), LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS NO PROOF THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO THE INCARCERATED DEFENDANT; DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, ON A BICYCLE, WAS STRUCK BY A BUS AND SUFFERED TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, A TORN ROTATOR CUFF AND SEVERAL HERNIATED DISCS; THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARDS, WHICH INCLUDED $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES, WERE DEEMED UNREASONABLE; NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
ARCHDIOCESE NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF NURSING HOME FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WORKED UNDER THE SINGLE-EMPLOYER DOCTRINE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
AS PLAINTIFF WAS REMOVING DUCTS FROM THE CEILING, A PORTION OF A DUCT STRUCK PLAINTIFF AND THE A-FRAME LADDER CAUSING HIM AND THE LADDER TO FALL TO THE FLOOR; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE LADDER WAS “UNSECURED;” PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​
WHETHER THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION AFTER REVERSAL OF A RESTRAINING NOTICE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN INSTALLMENT PAYMENT ORDER ARE DISCRETIONARY ISSUES TO BE DECIDED UPON REMAND; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE FACTS, PLAINTIFF CAN ASSERT A CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT, EVEN THOUGH BOTH ARE SIGNATORIES TO THE MULTILATERAL CONTRACTS; THE PARTIES HAVE DIFFERENT RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE CONTRACTS (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER INTO INMATE’S REFUSAL TO... PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE...